Addressing Misconceptions on the UK/Mauritius Chagos Agreement

Opinion

The landslide Opposition elections in both the US and Mauritius should not delay implementation of the agreement

By David Snoxell

There has been considerable controversy over the agreement struck after nearly two years of negotiation between the UK and Mauritius on 3 October concerning the future of the Chagos islands and its former inhabitants. The landslide Opposition elections in both the US and Mauritius should not delay implementation of the agreement.

The agreement provides for the UK to return the islands to Mauritius, while allowing the UK to exercise sovereignty on behalf of Mauritius on Diego Garcia for an initial 99 years. This arrangement provides the US with greater certainty and security, but it will not be a sovereign base such as the UK has in Cyprus since Mauritius retains sovereignty. There will be an indexed annual payment to Mauritius, a Chagossian Trust Fund and separately other support for Chagossians in the UK. 

Those who do not support the agreement raise the following objections:

• The islands never belonged to Mauritius.
• Chagossians were excluded from the negotiations.
• Mauritius would allow China to establish a base and thereby threaten the Diego Garcia base.

There is little evidence to support any of these objections.

In 1810 the British took Ile de France and its dependencies, renaming it Mauritius, after its earlier Dutch name. This was formalised in the1814 Treaty of Paris ending the Napoleonic Wars. Since the 1780s, the Chagos islands have been administered first by the French and then by the UK from the capital Port Louis. In 1965 the UK excised the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in violation of international law concerning decolonisation and renamed it the British Indian Ocean Territory. It included three islands belonging to Seychelles which were returned at its independence in 1976, a precedent for restoring the rest of the Archipelago to Mauritius. Furthermore the 1965 Lancaster House Agreement between the UK and Mauritius contained a legally binding undertaking to return the Archipelago when no longer required for defence purposes. The outer islands have never been so required.

The second criticism, not consulting Chagossians is debatable. As this was a negotiation between sovereign states Chagossians could not participate in the negotiations but there were five simultaneous consultation sessions mainly on-line. Since 1982 the Chagossian Refugees Group (CRG) in Mauritius has campaigned to return and began litigation against the UK. In November 2000 the High Court ruled that they must be allowed to return to the Outer Islands. In 2002 Parliament passed an act allowing Chagossians to become British citizens. Those who settled in the UK formed smaller groups. Their objective is to keep BIOT British. They claim the right to self-determination. As decided by the ICJ, in international law the question of self-determination belongs to the people of Mauritius including Chagossians most of whom are Mauritian.

The UK/Mauritius deal is good for Chagossians in that it provides for Mauritius to undertake resettlement on the islands, except for Diego Garcia where visits will be facilitated, and funds for those who choose to return. The CRG fully support the UK/Mauritius agreement. The shameful treatment of the Chagossians has since 2004 been recognised by HMG.

Under the new agreement the joint base is there for at least 99 years, though under the 1966 UK/US agreement the islands were made available for the defence needs of both countries until the end of 2036. This new agreement provides legal and political certainty for the base to remain and protect western interests.

As for the China trope, the Foreign Secretary stated in his oral statement to Parliament that, “We have full Mauritian backing for robust security arrangements including preventing foreign armed forces from accessing or establishing themselves on the outer islands”. Mauritius is a member of Francophonie and the Commonwealth and as such it would not prioritise China over its alliances with the West. Its closest allies are India, France, UK, US and Australia. It is noticeable that Mauritius is the only African country not to have joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

It has taken nearly 60 years to get a deal on the table, a finely balanced compromise, providing all parties with much of what they want though not all. It is in the Mauritian national interest and in the defense and security interests of the West. It enables the Chagossians to return and retrieves Britain’s damaged reputation for respect for international law and human rights, restoring the UK’s standing on the international stage.

Those who have been trying to derail the negotiations and now the agreement before it becomes a treaty should be aware that this is probably the last chance for Chagossians to return to their islands. Delay will allow opposition to the agreement to increase. To get through the process of signature by both parties, the drafting of a treaty to enshrine the agreement, laying it before the House of Commons for 21 sitting days and debate will take time. To complete all this before President Trump takes office on 20 January is a tall order, given the Christmas recess from 19 December – 6 January. Fortunately, on the Mauritian side there is no parliamentary assent procedure. Treaties are subject to Cabinet approval followed by a statement to the National Assembly.

I would expect the new Mauritian government to stand firmly behind the agreement which has taken two years to negotiate. After all, it was Prime Minister Ramgoolam in April 2010 who instructed Philippe Sands to find a way of bringing the issue of sovereignty to the ICJ and agreed with his recommendation to start a case under the Law of the Sea arbitration. Dr Ramgoolam is bound to feel much satisfaction as to what finally concluded with the ICJ decision, overwhelmingly endorsed by the UNGA in 2019, that Chagos must be returned to Mauritius.

Hopefully the future Trump Administration, egged on by a few politicians, journalists and academics with other agendas, does not try to stop the deal going forward. If that were the outcome the losers will be the US, UK, Mauritius, the Chagossians, the UN General Assembly, the Commonwealth, African Union and international law.

David Snoxell has been Coordinator of the Chagos Islands (BIOT) APPG since 2008. He was British High Commissioner to Mauritius, 2000-04, and Deputy Commissioner of the BIOT, 1995-7

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 15 November 2024